LetsGoRangers wrote:It's still a huge gamble if one is paying full tuition. There LST score is nothing to write home about and gives one a coin flips chance at FT legal employment. But it may be a better gamble for those with high debt loads because of its biglaw placement. It is still a game of russian roulette with Fordham.

I understand where you're coming from but I don't understand why anyone would think their success in law school will be a matter of simple chance (thus the russian roulette and coin flipping metaphors). You aren't abandoning your future to the fates by going to a school that doesn't place 100% of its graduates in big law; you're putting yourself in a position where you have to work hard and be success to succeed (which is pretty much every situation you'll face in life). I find it particularly odd that this perspective is so dominant on TLS, where most people are ambitious and are, or have been, successful in their undergraduate programs.

I'm an older student and know a lot of people around my age working in law. They've gone to schools like Columbia, NYU, Irvine, Cardozo, Fordham, GW, CUNY, Brooklyn, Northeastern, Rutgers Newark, Seton Hall, etc. Every single one of them has a good job right now (except the Columbia grad, interestingly enough). They all did relatively well in their respective programs and none of them have struggled to find work (not even the ones who graduated in 2009-2011). I know this evidence in anecdotal, but I'm just trying to say that while it's obviously important to look at the statistics and to try to weigh cost/potential in the most thorough way possible, after doing so, as long as you apply yourself you greatly increase your chances of doing well. One has to have a bit of faith in one's ability to be successful at law school. Otherwise what's the point?

LetsGoRangers wrote:It's still a huge gamble if one is paying full tuition. There LST score is nothing to write home about and gives one a coin flips chance at FT legal employment. But it may be a better gamble for those with high debt loads because of its biglaw placement. It is still a game of russian roulette with Fordham.

I understand where you're coming from but I don't understand why anyone would think their success in law school will be a matter of simple chance (thus the russian roulette and coin flipping metaphors). You aren't abandoning your future to the fates by going to a school that doesn't place 100% of its graduates in big law; you're putting yourself in a position where you have to work hard and be success to succeed (which is pretty much every situation you'll face in life). I find it particularly odd that this perspective is so dominant on TLS, where most people are ambitious and are, or have been, successful in their undergraduate programs.

I'm an older student and know a lot of people around my age working in law. They've gone to schools like Columbia, NYU, Irvine, Cardozo, Fordham, GW, CUNY, Brooklyn, Northeastern, Rutgers Newark, Seton Hall, etc. Every single one of them has a good job right now (except the Columbia grad, interestingly enough). They all did relatively well in their respective programs and none of them have struggled to find work (not even the ones who graduated in 2009-2011). I know this evidence in anecdotal, but I'm just trying to say that while it's obviously important to look at the statistics and to try to weigh cost/potential in the most thorough way possible, after doing so, as long as you apply yourself you greatly increase your chances of doing well. One has to have a bit of faith in one's ability to be successful at law school. Otherwise what's the point?

Of course grades are not built on chance. They come from hard work and dedication. But most people at LS are going to be bright and hard working too. I was making a reference to employment statistics. Everyone will be putting in hundreds of hours and hard work and applying themselves. That's why people recommend going to school with the best statistical outcomes. Fordham only places 50% of grads in full time legal employment jobs (thus the unfair coin flip analogy). That is a scary proposition for the amount of work LS requires. LS requires hard work, focus and a little bit of luck.

LetsGoRangers wrote:It's still a huge gamble if one is paying full tuition. There LST score is nothing to write home about and gives one a coin flips chance at FT legal employment. But it may be a better gamble for those with high debt loads because of its biglaw placement. It is still a game of russian roulette with Fordham.

I understand where you're coming from but I don't understand why anyone would think their success in law school will be a matter of simple chance (thus the russian roulette and coin flipping metaphors). You aren't abandoning your future to the fates by going to a school that doesn't place 100% of its graduates in big law; you're putting yourself in a position where you have to work hard and be success to succeed (which is pretty much every situation you'll face in life). I find it particularly odd that this perspective is so dominant on TLS, where most people are ambitious and are, or have been, successful in their undergraduate programs.

I'm an older student and know a lot of people around my age working in law. They've gone to schools like Columbia, NYU, Irvine, Cardozo, Fordham, GW, CUNY, Brooklyn, Northeastern, Rutgers Newark, Seton Hall, etc. Every single one of them has a good job right now (except the Columbia grad, interestingly enough). They all did relatively well in their respective programs and none of them have struggled to find work (not even the ones who graduated in 2009-2011). I know this evidence in anecdotal, but I'm just trying to say that while it's obviously important to look at the statistics and to try to weigh cost/potential in the most thorough way possible, after doing so, as long as you apply yourself you greatly increase your chances of doing well. One has to have a bit of faith in one's ability to be successful at law school. Otherwise what's the point?

While you're right that it definitely is not purely chance as if one works hard they should hopefully do well, there are many reasons why this may not translate. To start off with, law school being on a forced curve means that not everyone can get A's. Someone will be under the top third of the class, and in fact one is more likely to be under this threshold by definition. Second, law school grades are based pretty much exclusively on one test, the likes of which are very different than tests usually seen in UG, and while this may be helpful to some, it also may be detrimental to others. Third, while many have heard/read about the work required to do well in law school, many have never actually experienced this level of work before and may be unprepared for it. Finally, the price of law school as it currently stands along with the current market for law jobs in general is bleak. Point is, if someone is planning on taking on that much debt they need to go in with their eyes wide open and have a backup plan.

Rlabo wrote:While you're right that it definitely is not purely chance as if one works hard they should hopefully do well, there are many reasons why this may not translate. To start off with, law school being on a forced curve means that not everyone can get A's. Someone will be under the top third of the class, and in fact one is more likely to be under this threshold by definition. Second, law school grades are based pretty much exclusively on one test, the likes of which are very different than tests usually seen in UG, and while this may be helpful to some, it also may be detrimental to others. Third, while many have heard/read about the work required to do well in law school, many have never actually experienced this level of work before and may be unprepared for it. Finally, the price of law school as it currently stands along with the current market for law jobs in general is bleak. Point is, if someone is planning on taking on that much debt they need to go in with their eyes wide open and have a backup plan.

Yes, agree completely with all of that. And also, despite the positive tone of my previous posts, I'm all for people deciding not to go to law school, particularly those who aren't absolutely convinced they'll succeed or that it's worth the risk.

fredmerz wrote:Yes, agree completely with all of that. And also, despite the positive tone of my previous posts, I'm all for people deciding not to go to law school, particularly those who aren't absolutely convinced they'll succeed or that it's worth the risk.

But I don't see how anyone could be absolutely convinced they'll succeed without lying to themselves. It seems like the people that would be convinced that they would succeed would be the ones that are underestimating the difficulty of law school.

fredmerz wrote:Yes, agree completely with all of that. And also, despite the positive tone of my previous posts, I'm all for people deciding not to go to law school, particularly those who aren't absolutely convinced they'll succeed or that it's worth the risk.

But I don't see how anyone could be absolutely convinced they'll succeed without lying to themselves. It seems like the people that would be convinced that they would succeed would be the ones that are underestimating the difficulty of law school.

fredmerz wrote:Yes, agree completely with all of that. And also, despite the positive tone of my previous posts, I'm all for people deciding not to go to law school, particularly those who aren't absolutely convinced they'll succeed or that it's worth the risk.

But I don't see how anyone could be absolutely convinced they'll succeed without lying to themselves. It seems like the people that would be convinced that they would succeed would be the ones that are underestimating the difficulty of law school.

Huh?

I second that 'huh'. I, for example, am convinced I'll succeed in law school because I've done well in every other school setting I've ever been in (including postgraduate work), am confident of my logical reasoning and test taking abilities, and believe I will be able to focus, concentrate and work hard in that sort of environment. I also know a dozen or so people who have been through law school and have talked with them extensively so I know what I'm getting into. Of course I might be wrong, but I really don't think I'm lying to myself or underestimating the difficulty of law school.

fredmerz wrote:Yes, agree completely with all of that. And also, despite the positive tone of my previous posts, I'm all for people deciding not to go to law school, particularly those who aren't absolutely convinced they'll succeed or that it's worth the risk.

But I don't see how anyone could be absolutely convinced they'll succeed without lying to themselves. It seems like the people that would be convinced that they would succeed would be the ones that are underestimating the difficulty of law school.

This would be a little extreme in the opposite direction. Obviously no one could ever be "absolutely convinced they'll succeed" and that should not have been taken at face value. What should be taken as is that past performance and experience plus willingness to work hard shows that one has a significant chance of success. There is risk in anything in life so to say that this is not representative and calling it a lie is missing the point. And your latter point is just bad logic that would definitely lose you a few LSAT points. Just because some1 thinks they will be in a position to do well doesn't mean that they are underestimating the rigor of their future endevour. They may have a multitude of reasons why they may feel this that is not in line with underestimation.

fredmerz wrote:Yes, agree completely with all of that. And also, despite the positive tone of my previous posts, I'm all for people deciding not to go to law school, particularly those who aren't absolutely convinced they'll succeed or that it's worth the risk.

But I don't see how anyone could be absolutely convinced they'll succeed without lying to themselves. It seems like the people that would be convinced that they would succeed would be the ones that are underestimating the difficulty of law school.

This would be a little extreme in the opposite direction. Obviously no one could ever be "absolutely convinced they'll succeed" and that should not have been taken at face value. What should be taken as is that past performance and experience plus willingness to work hard shows that one has a significant chance of success. There is risk in anything in life so to say that this is not representative and calling it a lie is missing the point. And your latter point is just bad logic that would definitely lose you a few LSAT points. Just because some1 thinks they will be in a position to do well doesn't mean that they are underestimating the rigor of their future endevour. They may have a multitude of reasons why they may feel this that is not in line with underestimation.

Ah, I see what you mean. I definitely worded that too strongly. Maybe it's a confidence issue, but I feel like I have no reason to believe I'll do better or worse than other students in my class. I believe I'll be willing to put in the hard work, but I feel lost when trying to assess my ability to succeed because of the curve. Does that make sense?

fredmerz wrote:Yes, agree completely with all of that. And also, despite the positive tone of my previous posts, I'm all for people deciding not to go to law school, particularly those who aren't absolutely convinced they'll succeed or that it's worth the risk.

But I don't see how anyone could be absolutely convinced they'll succeed without lying to themselves. It seems like the people that would be convinced that they would succeed would be the ones that are underestimating the difficulty of law school.

This would be a little extreme in the opposite direction. Obviously no one could ever be "absolutely convinced they'll succeed" and that should not have been taken at face value. What should be taken as is that past performance and experience plus willingness to work hard shows that one has a significant chance of success. There is risk in anything in life so to say that this is not representative and calling it a lie is missing the point. And your latter point is just bad logic that would definitely lose you a few LSAT points. Just because some1 thinks they will be in a position to do well doesn't mean that they are underestimating the rigor of their future endevour. They may have a multitude of reasons why they may feel this that is not in line with underestimation.

Ah, I see what you mean. I definitely worded that too strongly. Maybe it's a confidence issue, but I feel like I have no reason to believe I'll do better or worse than other students in my class. I believe I'll be willing to put in the hard work, but I feel lost when trying to assess my ability to succeed because of the curve. Does that make sense?

No worries man, and yea its a scary feat law school. But I think there's a reason that TLS members in general are strongly represented in the tops of their class and its because it takes a certain level of effort and care to do this much research on LS and try to gain as much info as possible in order to have the best possible outcomes.

fredmerz wrote:I'm an older student and know a lot of people around my age working in law. They've gone to schools like Columbia, NYU, Irvine, Cardozo, Fordham, GW, CUNY, Brooklyn, Northeastern, Rutgers Newark, Seton Hall, etc. Every single one of them has a good job right now (except the Columbia grad, interestingly enough).

I was also WL'ed PT. I was tired of checking my email every 5 seconds and called admissions earlier. I was told that there was no deadline to hear back and to wait patiently. Take it for what its worth.

bearjew wrote:I was also WL'ed PT. I was tired of checking my email every 5 seconds and called admissions earlier. I was told that there was no deadline to hear back and to wait patiently. Take it for what its worth.

Goodluck to all.

lol kinda hard to do when their "update" email says "We will be making offers to waitlisted applicants in our evening division by Monday."

bearjew wrote:I was also WL'ed PT. I was tired of checking my email every 5 seconds and called admissions earlier. I was told that there was no deadline to hear back and to wait patiently. Take it for what its worth.

Goodluck to all.

lol kinda hard to do when their "update" email says "We will be making offers to waitlisted applicants in our evening division by Monday."

bearjew wrote:I was also WL'ed PT. I was tired of checking my email every 5 seconds and called admissions earlier. I was told that there was no deadline to hear back and to wait patiently. Take it for what its worth.

Goodluck to all.

lol kinda hard to do when their "update" email says "We will be making offers to waitlisted applicants in our evening division by Monday."

this.

Haha agreed. That's why I had to call. But they said they would be "aggressive" in the PT division in the email. Just crossing my fingers and constantly checking my email. Glad I'm not the only one going crazy over this.

bearjew wrote:I was also WL'ed PT. I was tired of checking my email every 5 seconds and called admissions earlier. I was told that there was no deadline to hear back and to wait patiently. Take it for what its worth.

Goodluck to all.

lol kinda hard to do when their "update" email says "We will be making offers to waitlisted applicants in our evening division by Monday."

this.

Haha agreed. That's why I had to call. But they said they would be "aggressive" in the PT division in the email. Just crossing my fingers and constantly checking my email. Glad I'm not the only one going crazy over this.

bearjew wrote:I was also WL'ed PT. I was tired of checking my email every 5 seconds and called admissions earlier. I was told that there was no deadline to hear back and to wait patiently. Take it for what its worth.

Goodluck to all.

lol kinda hard to do when their "update" email says "We will be making offers to waitlisted applicants in our evening division by Monday."

this.

Haha agreed. That's why I had to call. But they said they would be "aggressive" in the PT division in the email. Just crossing my fingers and constantly checking my email. Glad I'm not the only one going crazy over this.

Has anyone had any success negotiating more money? I've looked through the thread quickly and only found negative outcomes. I know they seem to cap merit scholarships at $30k per year but I'd like to get up to somewhere approaching that.